views without a thinker

[befriend]

there is no self, so there is nothing to call me or mine, not sight no feeling no thought, none of those things belong to us there is no thinker. but what about when we stub our toe and there is pain is there self then?

[ground]

there is no self, so there is nothing to call me or mine, not sight no feeling no thought, none of those things belong to us there is no thinker.

Self consciousness arises dependently. Conciousness "mine" arises dependently. Feeling and thought arise dependently.

but what about when we stub our toe and there is pain is there self then?

If self consciousness and/or conciousness "me"/"mine" arise dependently pain may do so as well. If the former is not the case then what could feel pain?

[cbonanno]

there is no self, so there is nothing to call me or mine, not sight no feeling no thought, none of those things belong to us there is no thinker. but what about when we stub our toe and there is pain is there self then?

This seems to be a current theme....

The Buddha does not teach that there is no self. That would actually be an extreme view in his understanding.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... tself.html

[SDC]

The Buddha does not teach that there is no self. That would actually be an extreme view in his understanding.

Did you reach this conclusion through personal experience or through literary research?

[SarathW]

Hi Befriend
Pain exists but not permenanent. You can avoid it.
Please weare a steel cap shoe next time.

In the Visuddhi Magga it is therefore said:

Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found.
The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there,
Nirvana is, but not the man that enters it.
The path is, but no traveller on it is seen.

Please see the attahed link for more details.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el202.html

[pegembara]

there is no self, so there is nothing to call me or mine, not sight no feeling no thought, none of those things belong to us there is no thinker. but what about when we stub our toe and there is pain is there self then?

Did you deliberately stub your toe or was it an accident? If it was an accident why should the the pain be taken personally. Pain arose because the toe contacted a hard object, that is all. You don't own the pain.

[SamKR]

The Buddha does not teach that there is no self. That would actually be an extreme view in his understanding.

Indeed, I have not found any sutta where the Buddha says "there is no self". He does not say "there is self" either. In the suttas the Buddha tells us to regard any phenomenon as ''This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self."
That's super interesting.

but what about when we stub our toe and there is pain is there self then?

Pain: this is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self

[SarathW]

Hi SamKR
if pain exist, is in it wrong to say that "pain is not mine" or "pain is mine" instead of seen pain as a impermanance process? Please also consider when I am in pain, only I sufer not you!

[nrose619]

The Buddha taught that a human is made up of the Five Aggregates, but this does not mean there is a "self". The "self" is a term given as a form of expression and in a way to solidify the ego which is an illusion as well. Just because there is no "self" that does not mean there is no existence. You are still comprised of matter and mental formations but the term "self" is merely an illusion because there is no essence found in man, simliar to if you break down a chair you will not find a chair essence. A complete chair with a seat,back, and legs is called "chair" and is considered a singular object rather than a compilation of legs, backing, and a seat. Similarly because we view ourselves in a singular manner we think the "self" exists when in actuality you won't find a "self" in feelings, mental formations, or anything for that matter. That is why in Buddhism we do not believe in a permanent soul or essence of man.

[manas]

How we grasp the doctrine relating to the khandas makes all the difference, ime. So many Buddhists seem to get fixated on the idea ' I have no self', but THAT statement is dismissed as wrong view, because (as I understand it) it is still a particular view of self.

If we put aside the notion of 'do I have a self' or 'do I have no self' (existent vs non existence) and instead, focus on cause and effect, that is better. 'Who feels' is the wrong question. We should rather ask, 'with what as a supporting condition, can feeling arise?' And the answer is, 'contact'.

[ground]

... ' I have no self', but THAT statement it's dismissed as wrong view, because (as I understand it) it is still a particular view of self.

Of course. Because what could it be that does not have? If it's felt like "I" and determined as such then it is the (felt) self that is affirmed.

[nrose619]

How we grasp the doctrine relating to the khandas makes all the difference, ime. So many Buddhists seem to get fixated on the idea ' I have no self', but THAT statement is dismissed as wrong view, because (as I understand it) it is still a particular view of self.

Well we should try and see what the Buddha was saying through the creation of the non-self doctrine anatta, for if we did not and simply called it incorrect because it being a view, it's existence would not come to be. I've heard some teachers say no-view is right-view but I think a view can be used skillfully without carrying it around with you. When a bolt is loose, you use a wrench to tighten it. You are using that wrench in a skillful manner. Using that wrench in an unskillful way would be using it to pick something out of your teeth or to carry it around with you at every moment saying "this is my wrench". Similarly, we can use the view of no-self in a skillful way without carrying it around with us.

[manas]

well we should try and see what the Buddha was saying through the creation of the non-self doctrine anatta,...

The trouble is that how it is presented and defined - even calling it 'the non self doctrine anatta' - seems to affect how people grasp it. I can't put any links up with this dratted 'smart phone' but if you look, Thanissaro Bhikkhu has written about this issue...

Metta

[nrose619]

"The trouble is that how it is presented and defined - even calling it 'the non self doctrine', an expression I've not found in any of the suttas - seems to affect how people grasp it. I can't put any links up with this dratted 'smart phone' but if you look, Thanissaro Bhikkhu has written about this issue..."

In what way would you present and define it? why should it matter what it is called as long as it does not alter the concept of the teaching? Quite frankly, I believe being concerned over the exactness of the name is more of a problem than the issue at hand, it seems there is more conceptualizing than practice taking part. For if the doctrine is put fully into practice it will be easier to understand in both concept and experience.

[manas]

Hi nrose

if you google 'no self or not self', and also, 'the not self strategy' (both by T.B.) and read them, that would explain it better. I'm limited as I'm posting from a phone here.

Edit: I hope my previous post did not come across as criticizing, it was not intended in that way.

[SamKR]

Hi SamKR
if pain exist, is in it wrong to say that "pain is not mine" or "pain is mine" instead of seen pain as a impermanance process? Please also consider when I am in pain, only I sufer not you!

Hello Sarath,
Pain that arises when toe is stubbed is feeling. In Anatta-lakkhana Sutta the Buddha says:

"Bhikkhus, feeling is not self. Were feeling self, then this feeling would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of feeling: 'Let my feeling be thus, let my feeling be not thus.' And since feeling is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of feeling: 'Let my feeling be thus, let my feeling be not thus.'
...
"Is feeling permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable sir." — "Now is what is impermanent pleasant or painful?" — "Painful, venerable sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."
...
"Any kind of feeling whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'

[manas]

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

The above sutta might be helpful regarding this topic

(I just figured out how to copy and paste links with this phone )

Metta

[nrose619]

I hope my previous post did not come across as criticizing, it was not intended in that way.

Hi manas, no worries I was just trying to figure out what you meant. Were you expressing that saying there is or is not a self is a limiting factor, instead we should view it as a means of liberation rather than a metaphysical position? because I agree. My aim was more to restate the concept of "not-self" by revealing how we are empty of it: "The intellect is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Ideas... Mental consciousness... Mental contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self"- S xxxv.85

[manas]

I hope my previous post did not come across as criticizing, it was not intended in that way.

Hi manas, no worries I was just trying to figure out what you meant. Were you expressing that saying there is or is not a self is a limiting factor, instead we should view it as a means of liberation rather than a metaphysical position? because I agree. My aim was more to restate the concept of "not-self" by revealing how we are empty of it: "The intellect is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Ideas... Mental consciousness... Mental contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self"- S xxxv.85

Hi nrose,

I don't think we disagree on it... but I suddenly feel that I ought to study more before discussing it further. I like how Thanissaro Bhikkhu explains it, I'm sure of that much.

[SarathW]

Hi everyone
If mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found, then why Buddha asked us to extend loving kindness towards the sufferer?